DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 30 September 2025. Claims 12 and 14 - 22 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 12, 14 – 19 and 22, as well as the cancellation of claim 13.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 13, “an energy source , a rotation” should read -- an energy source, a rotation--.
Claim 16, lines 2 – 3, “each electromagnetic guide coil” should read -- each of the at least two electromagnetic guide coils--.
Claim 17, lines 6 - 7, “in elongation and/or contraction” should read -- in the elongation and/or contraction--.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the rest position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16, line 7, the limitation “a rest position” is unclear as it raises the question if this is the same or different from the previously recited in line 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12, 15, 18 – 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (WO 2018154326 A1, Liu) in view of Ahn et al (KR 101984027 B1, hereinafter Ahn) in further view of Duplat et al (US 20200305796 A1, hereinafter Duplat).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches a device for propelling and steering a microstructure (page 4 lines 7 – 10, Figures 1 – 3, "[ ... ] a robotic locomotive device that is capable of driving itself forwards and backwards, anchoring and steering itself whilst inside a tubular structure, for example, the human colon[ ... ]"), the device comprising:
- a propulsion element including at least one portion deformable in elongation and/or contraction according to a main axis (page 15, lines 24 - 31, Figures 2 – 3, "[ ... ] Each segment 102, 104, 106 consists of an actuating mechanism (not shown) for driving the movement of each segment 102, 104, 106. Each segment 102, 104, 106 has a concertina-type configuration similar to that of the bendable portion of an articulated straw. As such, each segment 102, 104, 106 has a linear degree of freedom (DOF) such that it is capable of contracting and extending along the longitudinal axis of the device 1 [ ... ]") connecting a front portion and a rear portion of the propulsion element (page 15, lines 14 - 23, Figures 2 - 3, "[ ... ] The device 1 has an elongate body 100 comprising three segments; a first end segment 102, a middle segment 104 and a second end segment 106. [ ... ]");
-an electrical energy source (page 41, line 15 - page 42, line 8, "[ ... ] An external pump (not shown) is used to either increase or decrease the volume of fluid inside of each cavity 2106 via a small tube and thus enables actuation of each segment 2100 [ ... ]”; “electric motor 2304” page 45, line 10);
- at least two guide elements adapted to generate, under an effect of an energy supply (page 27, lines 17 - 23, Figure 12) by a respective connection to an energy source, a rotation of the propulsion element respectively about a first axis of rotation and about a second axis of rotation (page 15, line 29 - page 16, line 5, Figures 2 - 3, “[ ... ] the first end segment 102 and the second end segment 104 also have two rotational DOF to allow bending about two axes. As such, the end segments 102, 106 have three DOF. [ ... ]") transverse to each other and to the main axis of the propulsion element (the device 1 may also be capable of rotating about its longitudinal axis”, page 16, lines 8 – 10, Figures 2 - 3);
- a control unit (“control system”, page 10, line 7 and page 13, line 25) configured to actuate, by selectively controlling one or more of any connections to an energy source (Figure 12),
a rotation of the propulsion element about at least one axis transverse to the main axis in a coordinated manner with a deformation of a deformable portion of the propulsion element in the elongation and/or contraction according to the main axis (“the device 1 may also be capable of rotating about its longitudinal axis”, page 16, lines 8 – 10, Figure 3),
the guide elements further comprising at least two guide segments based on an material reversibly deformable (page 47, line 1 - page 48, line 6, Figures 26-28B, "[ ... ] The material used to encase the device may be adapted so as to control the frictional interaction between the segments 102, 104, 106, 2100 and the surface of the environment in which the device is deployed. [ ... ]") under the effect of an energy supply by a respective connection to an energy source (Figure 12), each guide segment being adapted to generate by the deformation (page 10, lines 9 - 15) thereof, under the effect of an energy supply (Figure 12),
a rotation of the propulsion element about an axis of rotation transverse to the main axis of the propulsion element (“the device 1 may also be capable of rotating about its longitudinal axis”, page 16, lines 8 – 10, Figure 3) (page 47, line 1 - page 48, line 6, Figures 26-28B, "[ ... ] Figure 28a shows a surface 2800 having a plurality of multi-direction scales or fibres 2802, the surface 2800 being in a straight position. Here, the fibres 2802 are lying substantially flat against the surface 2800. Figure 28b illustrates the surface 2800 as the segment which it is covering bends. [ ... ] As such, the combined effect of the locomotive motion, the anchoring of the segments between the walls of its environment and the hooking or anchoring action by the outer surface of the device makes it easier for the device to hook and pull itself around corners and bends [ ... ]"),
wherein the at least one guide segment includes an electroactive material or a bimetallic element, the electrical energy source being connected to the guide segment so as to activate the deformation thereof (Liu: “[ ... ] The device was tested in a rigid plastic pipe to approximate a human intestine and achieved speeds of 5mm/s. Menciassi et al. produced a device in [15] and [16] that relied on shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators to produce worm-like crawling motion. To ensure that the device would move forward, small hooks were embedded on the outer skin of the robot to increase friction in one direction. [ ... ]”).
Liu does not explicitly teach the at least two guide segments are made of a deformable active material, the microstructure is introduced in a fluid environment with a low Reynolds number comprised between 10-5 and 10-1(though it is noted that this is an intended use recitation), and the device for propelling and steering the microstructure having an external diameter smaller than or equal to 5 mm.
However, Ahn discloses “an actuator using an intelligent material capable of deforming only a part of a deformation member, thereby freely changing a shape thereof and realizing various driving forms” (abstract) and teaches guide segments are made of a deformable active material (“Actuators using intelligent materials can implement motions such as bending and twisting, and thus can be easily applied to implement flapping actuators, etc.”, [0002]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu such that teach the at least two guide segments are made of a deformable active material, as taught by Ahn, for the benefit of “implementing various actuation forms” (Ahn: [0005]) and because Liu discloses “Menciassi et al. produced a device [ … ] that relied on shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators to produce worm-like crawling motion” (Liu: page 20, line 23 - 24).
The modified invention of Liu and Ahn does not teach the microstructure is introduced in a fluid environment with a low Reynolds number comprised between 10-5 and 10-1 and the device for propelling and steering the microstructure having an external diameter smaller than or equal to 5 mm.
However, Duplat discloses a “microrobot configured to move in a viscous material, in particular in an organ of a subject such as a brain” and teaches a microstructure (“microrobot 1”, [0039], Figure 1) is introduced in a fluid with a low Reynolds number comprised between 10-5 and 10-1 (“microrobot is configured to move in a fluidic material at low Reynolds number, with a Reynolds number Re between 10-5 and 10-1”, [0022], “a viscous material M, such as the cerebrospinal fluid or the extracellular matrix of the brain of a subject which are low Reynolds number fluidic materials for the microrobot 1”, [0039], Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu and Ahn such that the microstructure is introduced in a fluid with a low Reynolds number comprised between 10-5 and 10-1, as taught by Duplat, for the benefit of “providing highly efficient propulsion [ … ] while preserving as much as possible the integrity of the environment in which [the microrobot] is displaced” (Duplat: [0003]). In the alternative, Liu, Ahn, and Duplat are capable of acting in a fluid with a Reynolds number as claimed.
The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat does not teach the device for propelling and steering the microstructure having an external diameter smaller than or equal to 5 mm.
However, Liu discloses “The outer diameter of all of the collars is 26mm” (Liu: page 23, line 1; Figures 4a – 4b). Examiner interprets from Figures 4a – 4b that “segments 102, 104, 106” (Liu: page 15, lines 24 - 31, Figures 2 – 3, 4a – 4b) have similar diameter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu, Ahn and Duplat by making the external diameter smaller than or equal to 5 mm, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Lastly, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat teaches the at least two of said guide segments are configured to actuate a deformation of the deformable portion of the propulsion element in the elongation and/or contraction according to the main axis when the at least two of said guide segments are deformed simultaneously and to actuate a rotation of the propulsion element about an axis of rotation transverse to the main axis when they are selectively deformed (Liu: Liu: “the device 1 may also be capable of rotating about its longitudinal axis”, page 16, lines 8 – 10, Figure 3; page 15, line 29 - page 16, line 5, Figures 2 - 3, “[ ... ] the first end segment 102 and the second end segment 104 also have two rotational DOF to allow bending about two axes. As such, the end segments 102, 106 have three DOF. [ ... ]") (Figures 2 - 3).
Regarding claim 18, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat teaches the control unit (Liu: “control system”, page 10, line 7 and page 13, line 25; Figure 12) is further configured to actuate a deformation of the deformable portion of the propulsion element by the elongation and/or contraction according to the main axis (Liu: page 10, line 7 and page 13, line 25; Figure 12).
Regarding claim 19, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat teaches an actuator, configured to actuate the deformation of the deformable portion of the propulsion element in the elongation and/or contraction according to the main axis (Liu: page 41, line 15 - page 42, line 8, "[ ... ] An external pump (not shown) is used to either increase or decrease the volume of fluid inside of each cavity 2106 via a small tube and thus enables actuation of each segment 2100 [ ... ]").
Regarding claim 20, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat teaches the at least two guide elements are positioned radially outside the deformable portion (Liu: Figures 26 – 28B).
Regarding claim 22, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat teaches a method for propelling and steering a microstructure, such as a flexible tube or a microrobot (page 4 lines 7 – 10, Figures 1 – 3, "[ ... ] a robotic locomotive device that is capable of driving itself forwards and backwards, anchoring and steering itself whilst inside a tubular structure, for example, the human colon[ ... ]"), wherein:
- the microstructure is connected to a propulsion and steering device according to claim 12 (page 4 lines 7 – 10, Figures 1 – 3, "[ ... ] a robotic locomotive device that is capable of driving itself forwards and backwards, anchoring and steering itself whilst inside a tubular structure, for example, the human colon[ ... ]"; see claim 12 rejection above),
- the microstructure with the a propulsion and steering device according to claim 12 (see claim 12 rejection above) is introduced in a fluid with a low Reynolds number comprised between 10-5 and 10-1 (Duplat: “microrobot is configured to move in a fluidic material at low Reynolds number, with a Reynolds number Re between 10-5 and 10-1”, [0022], “a viscous material M, such as the cerebrospinal fluid or the extracellular matrix of the brain of a subject which are low Reynolds number fluidic materials for the microrobot 1”, [0039], Figure 1);
-at least one of the connections to an energy source are actuated, by selectively controlling using the control unit (Liu: “control system”, page 10, line 7 and page 13, line 25),
a rotation of the propulsion element about at least one axis transverse to the main axis in a coordinated manner with a deformation of the deformable portion of the propulsion element in the elongation and/or contraction according to the main axis (Liu: “the device 1 may also be capable of rotating about its longitudinal axis”, page 16, lines 8 – 10, Figure 3).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ahn and Duplat, as applied in claim 12, in view of Morris et al (US 20150298322 A1, hereinafter Morris).
Regarding claim 14, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat does not teach the at least one guide segment includes a photoactive material, the device comprising a radiation source whose radiation is emitted opposite the guide segment so as to activate the deformation thereof.
However, Morris discloses “micro-mechanical actuator devices, such as MEMS, and more particularly to optically-actuated mechanical devices and the actuation” ([0003]) and teaches a photoactive material (“optically actuated mechanical devices”, [0018]), a device comprising a radiation source ([0026]) whose radiation is emitted opposite the guide segment so as to activate the deformation thereof (Figures 5 – 7, [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu, Ahn and Duplat such that the at least one guide segment includes a photoactive material, the device comprising a radiation source whose radiation is emitted opposite the guide segment so as to activate the deformation thereof, as taught by Morris, because Morris includes a thermally-sensitive shape memory alloy (SMA) (Morris: [0018]) in which Liu discloses as well to produce worm-like crawling motion” (Liu: page 20, line 23 - 24).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ahn and Duplat, as applied in claim 12, in view of Takeyama et al (WO 2007023671 A1, hereinafter Takeyama).
Regarding claim 16, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat teaches the guide elements (Liu: page 27, lines 17 - 23, Figure 12) and an electrical energy source (Liu: Figure 12; Examiner interprets the “servo control” includes an electrical energy source.).
The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat does not teach the guide elements comprise at least two electromagnetic guide coils, each electromagnetic guide coil being provided with a respective connection to an electrical energy source, which form an electromagnetic transducer with a magnet secured to the propulsion element, the magnet being parallel to the main axis of the propulsion element in the rest position, each guide coil being adapted to generate, under the effect of an electrical energy supply, a rotation of the magnet with respect to its rest position causing a rotation of the propulsion element about an axis of rotation transverse to the main axis of the propulsion element.
However, Takeyama discloses a “capsule-type medical apparatus in which a guide string can be separated from a body of the apparatus” and teaches the guide elements comprise at least two electromagnetic guide coils ([0030], [0016], [0049], see annotated Takeyama Figure 1),
each electromagnetic guide coil being provided with a respective connection to an electrical energy source (“the power receiving means receives an electromagnetic induction wave transmitted from an external power transmission coil. It is characterized by receiving power supply by a coil for the purpose”, [0016], [0049]),
which form an electromagnetic transducer ([0016], [0049]) with a magnet (“magnet 5”, [0034]) secured to the propulsion element (“screw part 2”, [0030], Figure 1) (Figures 1 and 11), the magnet (5) being parallel to the main axis of the propulsion element (2) in the rest position (Figure 1) ([0016], [0049]),
each guide coil being adapted to generate, under the effect of an electrical energy supply ([0016], [0049]),
a rotation of the magnet (5) with respect to its rest position causing a rotation of the propulsion element about an axis of rotation transverse to the main axis of the propulsion element ([0024], [0030], “The magnet 5 is fixed inside the capsule and is magnetically rotated by a rotating magnetic field generated from the magnetic field generator 23 of the control device 200 installed outside the living body. By rotating the capsule body together with the magnet 5, the screw part 2 provided on the outer peripheral surface of the capsule body is rotated in contact with the inner wall of the body cavity, and the capsule body can be propelled by itself”, [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu, Ahn and Duplat such that the guide elements comprise at least two electromagnetic guide coils, each electromagnetic guide coil being provided with a respective connection to an electrical energy source, which form an electromagnetic transducer with a magnet secured to the propulsion element, the magnet being parallel to the main axis of the propulsion element in the rest position, each guide coil being adapted to generate, under the effect of an electrical energy supply, a rotation of the magnet with respect to its rest position causing a rotation of the propulsion element about an axis of rotation transverse to the main axis of the propulsion element, as taught by Takeyama, for the benefit of propelling by itself and “mov[ing] to a predetermined position in the body cavity” (Takeyama: [0048]).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Liu, Ahn, Duplat and Takeyama teach all limitations of claim 16. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Takeyama the propulsion and steering device (Liu: page 4 lines 7 – 10, Figures 1 – 3, "[ ... ] a robotic locomotive device that is capable of driving itself forwards and backwards, anchoring and steering itself whilst inside a tubular structure, for example, the human colon[ ... ]") comprising a linear actuation electromagnetic coil (Takeyama: [0030], [0016], [0049], Figure 1), provided with a respective connection to an electrical energy source (Takeyama: “the power receiving means receives an electromagnetic induction wave transmitted from an external power transmission coil. It is characterized by receiving power supply by a coil for the purpose”, [0016], [0049]),
which also forms an electromagnetic transducer (Takeyama: [0016], [0049]) with the magnet (Takeyama: “magnet 5”, [0034]) secured to the propulsion element (Liu: page 15, lines 24 - 31, Figures 2 – 3, "[ ... ] Each segment 102, 104, 106 consists of an actuating mechanism (not shown) for driving the movement of each segment 102, 104, 106. Each segment 102, 104, 106 has a concertina-type configuration similar to that of the bendable portion of an articulated straw. As such, each segment 102, 104, 106 has a linear degree of freedom (DOF) such that it is capable of contracting and extending along the longitudinal axis of the device 1 [ ... ]"),
the linear actuation coil (Takeyama: [0030], [0016], [0049], Figure 1) being adapted to generate, under the effect of an electrical energy supply (Takeyama: [0016], [0049]), a translation of the magnet (Takeyama: 5), said translation being parallel to the main axis and causing deformation of the deformable portion of the propulsion element in elongation and/or contraction according to the main axis (Liu: page 10, lines 9 - 15).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ahn and Duplat, as applied in claim 12, in view of Kim (KR 2011016370 A, see attached translation).
Regarding claim 21, Liu, Ahn and Duplat teach all limitations of claim 12. The modified invention of Liu, Ahn and Duplat does not teach the deformable portion includes an oscillating disc disposed between the front portion and the rear portion, the at least two guide elements being disposed between the rear portion and the oscillating disc.
However, Kim discloses a “robot capable of being propelled by using a cilium by generating vibration is provided to move a body part in a specific direction by the action of a cilium unit by generating vibration with a vibrating member” (abstract) and teaches an oscillating disc (“only induced vibration means (47)”, page 4; Figure 13; Examiner interprets vibration reads on the limitation “oscillating”.) disposed between a front portion and a rear portion, the at least two guide elements being disposed between the rear portion and the oscillating disc (See Kim’s annotated Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Liu, Ahn and Duplat such that the deformable portion includes an oscillating disc disposed between the front portion and the rear portion, the at least two guide elements being disposed between the rear portion and the oscillating disc, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of changing direction driven by the guiding components (page 9, paragraph 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to specification objection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The specification objection of 30 April 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The claim objections of 30 April 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 - 8, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The claim objections of 30 April 2025 have been withdrawn except for the one below.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the rest position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Applicant's arguments see page 9, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Liu does not disclose that the guide elements that further comprise at least two guide segments based on an active material that is reversibly deformable under the effect of energy supplied by a respective connection to an energy source, each guide segment being capable, under the effect of energy input, of generating, by its deformation, a rotation of the propulsion element about an axis of rotation transverse to the main axis of the propulsion element.”.
However, Liu does teach the guide elements that further comprise at least two guide segments based on an active material that is reversibly deformable (page 47, line 1 - page 48, line 6, Figures 26-28B, "[ ... ] The material used to encase the device may be adapted so as to control the frictional interaction between the segments 102, 104, 106, 2100 and the surface of the environment in which the device is deployed. [ ... ] under the effect of energy supplied by a respective connection to an energy source (Figure 12(, each guide segment being capable, under the effect of energy input, of generating, by its deformation, a rotation of the propulsion element about an axis of rotation transverse to the main axis of the propulsion element (“the device 1 may also be capable of rotating about its longitudinal axis”, page 16, lines 8 – 10, Figure 3) (page 47, line 1 - page 48, line 6, Figures 26-28B, "[ ... ] Figure 28a shows a surface 2800 having a plurality of multi-direction scales or fibres 2802, the surface 2800 being in a straight position. Here, the fibres 2802 are lying substantially flat against the surface 2800. Figure 28b illustrates the surface 2800 as the segment which it is covering bends. [ ... ] As such, the combined effect of the locomotive motion, the anchoring of the segments between the walls of its environment and the hooking or anchoring action by the outer surface of the device makes it easier for the device to hook and pull itself around corners and bends [ ... ]").
Applicant's arguments see page 9, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Liu also does not provide any details as to the nature of the tendons 402, which the Office Action considers to be the technical equivalent to the "guide elements" of the present invention. There is therefore no indication of an electroactive or bimetallic material.”.
However, Liu discloses “[ ... ] The device was tested in a rigid plastic pipe to approximate a human intestine and achieved speeds of 5mm/s. Menciassi et al. produced a device in [15] and [16] that relied on shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators to produce worm-like crawling motion. To ensure that the device would move forward, small hooks were embedded on the outer skin of the robot to increase friction in one direction. [ ... ]”). Examiner interprets the “shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators” to read on “an electroactive or bimetallic material” limitation.
Applicant's arguments see page 9, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Liu also does not disclose a device configured to move in a fluid with a low Reynolds number. However, Duplat teaches a device configured to move in a fluid with a low Reynolds number. See claim 12 rejection above.
Applicant's arguments see page 9, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “the dimensions of the device in Liu are not equal to 5 mm.”. See claim 12 rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 - 13, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claim(s) 12 and 14 – 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uchiyama et al (JP-2005130943-A) discloses “a capsule type medical apparatus which is equipped with a transmitting antenna and a power receiving antenna and realizes a reduction in size.” (abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791